Why did the monks disagreed about what happened to Becket?
In the year 1170, Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, was murdered at the altar of Canterbury Cathedral by four knights. Some dispute has arisen since that time surrounding exactly what happened that day. Therefore, in this essay, I will present a number of sources explaining why there was and still is disagreement over Thomas Becket's death.
First of all, we know that Edward Grim, priest, was at the scene. However, the three monks providing the sources gave differing evidence about what he did and his injuries. For instance, Grim himself stated that "by the same stroke [a knight] almost cut off my arm"; whereas William Fitzstephen and William of Canterbury agreed that Grim was …show more content…
All three sources present varied quotations for Becket's final 'speech' and yet Fitzstephen and Canterbury present a similar phrase, being: "I commend my spirit". The reason for the differentiation between the evidence provided must be as a result of Grim's injuries. When you are in pain, it is a lot easier to watch an event going on around you as opposed to listening to every word of conversation. Grim may have been able to catch a few individual words every now and then; but Fitzstephen and Canterbury were not injured and consequently likely to have heard his final words more distinctly than the wounded Grim. In spite of these reasons, all three quotes pretty much state the same phrase, but worded …show more content…
However, there is a larger number of similarities than differences for this point. Both Grim and Fitzstephen were inclined to agree that the final murderer who finished the deed 'for the King' was a knight named Hugh Mauclerc. On the contrary, Canterbury only specified "a man" in his witness statement. This disagreement is due to the fact that Canterbury ran away half-way through the action in the Cathedral, preventing him from discovering the ending for himself. Thus, he only found out the final section of the story by ear - like Chinese whispers - and from the other knights' information. This meant that he couldn't specify exactly who committed the final act concerning Becket's body; whereas Grim and Fitzstephen were easily able to as they had been present at the time. On the other hand, these men were knights. Knights have to have special equipment and armour for fighting therefore Hugh Mauclerc - with his visor down - may have seemed like another knight and that knight may have seemed like Hugh Mauclerc. Consequently, we cannot be certain.
In summary, all three of the sources took slightly different views on the events of that fateful day in 1170 at the Cathedral. Therefore, we can never be sure about it today; however, historians around the world have taken the most common statements and put them together to obtain this information: Becket's last words must have included the phrase "I commend my spirit";
In the year 1170, Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, was murdered at the altar of Canterbury Cathedral by four knights. Some dispute has arisen since that time surrounding exactly what happened that day. Therefore, in this essay, I will present a number of sources explaining why there was and still is disagreement over Thomas Becket's death.
First of all, we know that Edward Grim, priest, was at the scene. However, the three monks providing the sources gave differing evidence about what he did and his injuries. For instance, Grim himself stated that "by the same stroke [a knight] almost cut off my arm"; whereas William Fitzstephen and William of Canterbury agreed that Grim was …show more content…
All three sources present varied quotations for Becket's final 'speech' and yet Fitzstephen and Canterbury present a similar phrase, being: "I commend my spirit". The reason for the differentiation between the evidence provided must be as a result of Grim's injuries. When you are in pain, it is a lot easier to watch an event going on around you as opposed to listening to every word of conversation. Grim may have been able to catch a few individual words every now and then; but Fitzstephen and Canterbury were not injured and consequently likely to have heard his final words more distinctly than the wounded Grim. In spite of these reasons, all three quotes pretty much state the same phrase, but worded …show more content…
However, there is a larger number of similarities than differences for this point. Both Grim and Fitzstephen were inclined to agree that the final murderer who finished the deed 'for the King' was a knight named Hugh Mauclerc. On the contrary, Canterbury only specified "a man" in his witness statement. This disagreement is due to the fact that Canterbury ran away half-way through the action in the Cathedral, preventing him from discovering the ending for himself. Thus, he only found out the final section of the story by ear - like Chinese whispers - and from the other knights' information. This meant that he couldn't specify exactly who committed the final act concerning Becket's body; whereas Grim and Fitzstephen were easily able to as they had been present at the time. On the other hand, these men were knights. Knights have to have special equipment and armour for fighting therefore Hugh Mauclerc - with his visor down - may have seemed like another knight and that knight may have seemed like Hugh Mauclerc. Consequently, we cannot be certain.
In summary, all three of the sources took slightly different views on the events of that fateful day in 1170 at the Cathedral. Therefore, we can never be sure about it today; however, historians around the world have taken the most common statements and put them together to obtain this information: Becket's last words must have included the phrase "I commend my spirit";